JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner a registered Special Class Contractor under the State Government, has filed this writ application praying for a direction to the opposite parties 1 to 4 to award work in respect of package No. OR-04-10 in his favour under Pradhan Mantri Grama Sadak Yozana (PMGSY) in the district of Bhadrak. 2. Case of the petitioner is that on 5.1.2002 tenders were invited for different works under the PMGSY including the pack¬ages, such as, package Nos. OR-04-08 and OR-04-10. Pursuant to such tender call notice, the petitioner submitted his tender in respect of the aforesaid two packages. Vide letter dated 25.1.2002 the opposite party No. 3 directed the petitioner to remain present in the office of the Superintending Engineer, North Eastern Rural Works Circle, Keonjhar for negotiation as the price quoted by the petitioner was found to be lowest in comparison to other tenders in respect of package No. OR-04-10. The petitioner pursuant to such letter submitted his negotiated rates by reduc¬ing price quoted by him earlier in the tender which was also accepted by the opposite party No. 3. However, again on 12.2.2002 the opposite party no. 2 directed the petitioner to attend office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Works-II, Bhubaneswar for further negotiation and finalisation of tender. Pursuant to such letter the petitioner again appeared before the opposite party No. 2, further negotiation took place and the price quoted by the peti¬tioner on further negotiation was to the satisfaction of the opposite party No. 2. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party No. 2 asked the petitioner to extend validity of the tender to 31.5.2002 which was duly complied. Though negotiated price was accepted by the opposite party No. 2 work order was not issued in favour of the petitioner and surprisingly technical staff of the Orissa Construction Corporation Limited started inspection in the site. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the tender process has been cancelled and the work is likely to be awarded in favour of the Orissa Construction Corporation Limited. Later the petitioner was informed that the tender process has been can¬celled and his tender was not being considered as progress of work under different packages undertaken by the petitioner was slow. The petitioner challenging such action of the opposite parties 1 to 4 has filed this writ application. 3. Later the petitioner was informed that the tender process has been can¬celled and his tender was not being considered as progress of work under different packages undertaken by the petitioner was slow. The petitioner challenging such action of the opposite parties 1 to 4 has filed this writ application. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite par¬ties 2 to 4 stating therein the work is to be executed under the PMGSY as a time bound scheme sponsored and financed by the Gov¬ernment of India for welfare of State. State Government is the only agency to see that the work is done within the time limit and the funds given by the Central Government are utilized properly. In order to complete such work in time tenders were invited in respect of 220 packages. While deciding acceptance of tender for awarding work the Department had decided to look into three aspects, such as, past performance of the contractor in executing the works already allotted to him, the rates quoted by the con¬tractor and efficiency and quality of work and experience of the contractor. Keeping these guidelines in view in respect of 11 packages tender papers were rejected including the package in respect of which the petitioner was the lowest tenderer. Since further re-tendering requires more time and the work would got delayed the State Government decided to award the work in favour of the Orissa Construction Corporation Limited, a State Government Undertaking. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the past performance of the petitioner was not up to the mark and quality of work was also not satisfactory. In the counter-affidavit examples of such work executed by the petitioner has also been given. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Government of Orissa in the Department of Water Resources Vide Circular No. 20754 decided that M/s. Orissa Construction Corpora¬tion Limited be awarded with the contract work with an estimated value totalling upto hundred crores rupees per year without invi¬tation of tender. In view of such circular, there was no reason for inviting tenders again and it was open for the State Govern¬ment to award work in favour of the said Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that past performance of the petitioner as indicated in the counter affida¬vit is not based on any record. In view of such circular, there was no reason for inviting tenders again and it was open for the State Govern¬ment to award work in favour of the said Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that past performance of the petitioner as indicated in the counter affida¬vit is not based on any record. On the other hand, it was submit¬ted that the works entrusted to the petitioner had been completed in due time. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the relevant package the petitioner was not only the lowest tenderer but also on two occasions negotia¬tion were held and the price was brought down by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the opposite parties. In view of the above, there was no reason to cancel the tender and award the work in favour of the Corporation. which neither has infrastruc¬ture to execute such work nor has the capacity. It was also fur¬ther contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government undertaking which is running in huge loss due to its incapacity to execute work, is being tried to be revived by way of issuing work order in its favour to the tune of rupees one hundred crores per year. Learned counsel also submitted that even if such work is entrusted to the Corporation, it being not in a position to execute the said work because of non-availability of infrastructure is sub-letting the work to other contractors. Learned counsel for the State Government, on the other hand, submitted that cancellation of tender notice is the discretion of the State Government and so long as tender of a particular con¬tractor is not accepted, no right accrues to him. In the present case, before acceptance of the tender, tender process having been cancelled the petitioner has no right to challenge the same. It was further contended that the Orissa Construction Corporation Limited being a State Government owned undertaking, no motive can be attributed to the officers of the State Government in awarding the work in favour of its Corporation. 5. It was further contended that the Orissa Construction Corporation Limited being a State Government owned undertaking, no motive can be attributed to the officers of the State Government in awarding the work in favour of its Corporation. 5. From the averments made in the writ application as well as counter-affidavit and from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that tenders were invited in respect of certain packages under the Scheme as aforesaid and the petitioner had submitted his tender in respect of two packages. In respect of one package as stated earlier, the petitioner’s price quoted in the tender was found to be lowest and therefore he was called for negotiation. There is no dispute that negotia¬tion took place twice and the petitioner brought down prices quoted by him earlier in the tender but the facts remain that the tender had not been finalised in favour of the petitioner nor any agreement had been executed with him. In view of the above, it cannot be said that any right accrues in favour of the petitioner in absence of any agreement or acceptance of tender filed him. Since no right has accrued to the petitioner, he cannot also challenge the legality of the decision taken by the State Govern¬ment in cancelling the entire tender process. So far as award of the Contract in favour of the Orissa Construction Corporation Limited is concerned, there is no dispute that the said Corpora¬tion is State Government owned undertaking. It is open for the State Government to make a policy decision in order to support one of its own undertakings and such a decision cannot be chal¬lenged as malafide or motivated. 6. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submis¬sion of the learned counsel for the petitioner on both counts. However, before parting with the case, we would like to observe that if the State Government has already taken decision to award work/contract to the Orissa Construction Corporation Limited to the tune of rupees hundred crores per year, it should first consider as to whether a particular work is to be awarded to the Orissa Construction Corporation or the State Government would go in for open tender. There is no point in inviting tenders asking contractors to deposit earnest money, process tenders and sudden¬ly cancel the same. There is no point in inviting tenders asking contractors to deposit earnest money, process tenders and sudden¬ly cancel the same. Such conduct of the State Government amounts to harassment to the contractors who are submitting tenders pursuant to tender call notice. If a decision at the first in¬stance is taken as to whether State Government wants to award work in favour of Orissa Construction Corporation Limited or would like to open for tender, such harassment to the individual contractor or firm could be avoided. In the view of the above finding, the writ application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. I agree. Application dismissed.